So gay!!!

[Hopper]

I have no idea what's in his head. Maybe he's like Sean Connery in Hunt For Red October and thinks he has "one chance in three", but he's hoping they "grab the boat." But probably he thinks that if he gets it passed inspection there are things he wrote that will swing Kennedy who most say is the crucial vote.

I have no idea what's in his head either, but I think he made major mistakes here. He tried to play both sides of the fence, and did very poorly at it, I think. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to use the "power" he seems to think he has (contrary to Heller, and other cases) to decide and determine facts and thereby control (he thinks) the appellate courts. He wants to act like he respects precedent by applying the rational relation test, and then "find" as a matter of supposed "fact" that there is no rational relation. To do this, he has to acknowledge and apply both the law and the supposed "facts" in a HIGHLY SELECTIVE fashion. In the process he loses all credibility that he might otherwise have had a chance to maintain, had he approached it differently.

Without having given it much thought, if I were him I might have simply said:

"I realize that the Supreme Court has NOT given gays more equal protection rights than are afforded other citizens, but I think they should have. Gays are *special* and deserve more rights than the average bear. I am therefore going to ignore the "rational relation" standard and impose a heightened standard (say strict scrutiny) in these proceedings, and evaluate all claims accordingly. If the Supreme Court thinks this was improper, they can rule against me."

At least his ruling might have made some sense that way, and he was ignoring (and therefore violating) all relevant precedent anyway, so what does he have to lose by revealing his agenda up front?

 

[billyshelby]

Lawyers might excoriate Walker, but at worst he's the guy who poured gasoline on himself to make a political statement which will eventually be borne out as self evident fact when the world catches up to the obvious truth of gay marriage. He'll be one of history's winners that only the unsexy legal world doesn't recognize. At best, he'll actually win. His case will make it past CERT and he'll be the hero as the guy who launched the 14th Amendment revisions that brought the United States further into the future.

So save the dishonest, illogical, solipsistic legal crap. The whole legal system has an illustrious history of depriving people of their basic rights until suddenly, out of nowhere, those rights become apparent. If Walker is shot down, he'll just be the guy doing the right thing the wrong way the best way he knew how. Law is gamesmanship. When we're lucky, it stumbles onto truth. Fortunately, it's mostly made steady progress that arena, however slow it takes.

 

[Hopper]

Heh, spoken like a true zealot, Biley. Those Buddisht monks who torched themselves to "protest" the vietnam war sure accomplished a lot, ya know?

Just guessin, of course, but I spect that feelin of burnin alive wasn't nuthin nice. Whoever was in the crowd, watchin, eggin them on, and cheerin got a big-*** kick outta seein it though, I betcha. I KNOW I wudda!

 

[billyshelby]

Heh, spoken like a true zealot, Biley. Those Buddisht monks who torched themselves to "protest" the vietnam war sure accomplished a lot, ya know?

Just guessin, of course, but I spect that feelin of burnin alive wasn't nuthin nice. Whoever was in the crowd, watchin, eggin them on, and cheerin probably got a big-*** kick outta seein it though, I betcha. I KNOW I wudda!

Uh, yeah aint, that's a perfect analogy.

 

[Hopper]

If ya don't like the analogy, then mebbe ya shouldn't autta make it, eh?

Walker, at worst [is] the guy who poured gasoline on himself to make a political statement

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

I heard the one Buddhist monk who set himself on fire remained seating and unflinching for something like 10-15 minutes as his body burned. Is that true? Do they have this sort of thing on youtube? PM me if so.

 

[One Brow]

I have no idea what's in his head either, but I think he made major mistakes here. He tried to play both sides of the fence, and did very poorly at it, I think. ... and he was ignoring (and therefore violating) all relevant precedent anyway, so what does he have to lose by revealing his agenda up front?

As I have already noted, what strikes me most about this question is the utter hyprocrisy and solipsism shown by Walker. ... Fundamental fairness and logic seem to be far removed from whatever his motives are and his thinking is, if ya ax me.

"Not subject to courtroom factfinding," see? Nice try, there, Judge Walker.

They were very selective, as has been his approach to everything in this case it seems. He just ignores (rather than acknowledge and attempt to distinguish) controlling precedents, such as Baker v Nelson, so this is not really surprising, I guess.

Heh, spoken like a true zealot, Biley.

Specks and planks, Hopper.

 

[billyshelby]

If ya don't like the analogy, then mebbe ya shouldn't autta make it, eh?

You're right. I made the analogy, you went with it. +1. I'm guessing Walker has enough sense to stick with being a figurative martyr and will sleep well the rest of his days. I'm also guessing the Monk changed his mind within milliseconds and didn't graduate at the top of his class in Monk School. Maybe there will come a day when children in federally funded reparative therapy schools are taught the cautionary tale of a scary judge who thought they were normal. Sadly, I won't see it because by then I will have moved to a more enlightened country like North Korea or Iran.

 

[Hopper]

Specks and planks, Hopper.

So, then, I'm axxin myself: "Zup wit dat? Some kinda pirate thang, dat it? Like where ya takes every last speck they gotz, then makes em walk the plank, er sumthin?"

Then Betty Mae, who has been goin to church, regular-like, for about 97 years comes long an says: Hoppa, aincha knowin nuthin? That's from the Bible.

So, then I'm thinkin, who's says peoples can't make no radical changes, eh? Eric, he done went and got religion! Like, whooda thunk, I ax ya?

 

[Hopper]

I guess Arnie Schwarzenegger couldn't just leave it be at "choosin not to appeal," seein as how he had his attorney general file a brief in the appellate court actively opposing the issuance of a stay. Aint no "friendly suit," eh? Yeah, right.

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/08/13/fileresponse.pdf

So, then, I'm lookin at this here motion for stay, the one filed by the prop 8 guys, ya know? Seems like the ninth circuit court of appeals done been down this here road before. Says there:

"In Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), this Court interpreted “spouse” in a federal immigration provision to exclude partners in a purported same-sex marriage, and squarely held that “Congress’s decision to confer spouse status … only upon the parties to heterosexual marriages has a rational basis and therefore comports with the due process clause and its equal protection requirements.” Id. at 1042. This binding decision likewise forecloses Plaintiffs’ claims."

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datast...tay_pending_appeal_Ninth Circuit_COMPLETE.PDF


Thing is, that ruling was made WITHOUT the benefit of Vaughn Walker's wise insight into the issue, so it really don't count, I figure.

Eric, if you're actually interested in the type of evidence, argument, and legal precedent introduced at trial by the prop 8 people, this motion provides (a neccessarily quite limited) summary of some of it.

 

[billyshelby]

Aint, does it even occur to you that every single landmark civil rights decision had to fight against an overwhelming tide of opposing decisions? It's like you think the only reason Brown or Loving passed muster is because somebody finally got the legal particulars right and had nothing to do with cultural shifts where the climate was finally right for people to understand that discrimination was happening on their watch.

 

[Hopper]

Aint, does it even occur to you that every single landmark civil rights decision had to fight against an overwhelming tide of opposing decisions? It's like you think the only reason Brown or Loving passed muster is because somebody finally got the legal particulars right and had nothing to do with cultural shifts where the climate was finally right for people to understand that discrimination was happening on their watch.

Did it ever occur to you, Biley, that homosexuals in California are not being deprived of the right to vote, the right to lodging, the right to enter public places, the right to enter into "domestic partnerships," etc.? The attempt to equate letting homos marry with the abolition of the enslavement of blacks don't fly with anybody except homosexuals, I'm afraid.

Even if you did want to equate the two, then the homos should git busy amendin the U.S. Constitution, instead of appealing to the Supreme Court, I figure. That's what it took to end slavery, not a Supreme Court case (which was powerless to amend the constitution).

Did you read the motion for stay I just cited, I wonder? Among other relevant information, that motion includes the exact same language used by Meese. It says the judge found that the “evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes,” Ex. A at 127.

So, there ya have it, then, eh? It's in Exhibit A, at page 127.